Bill C-35 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to change the manner of regulating third parties in immigration processes. Among other things it
(a) creates a new offence by extending the prohibition against representing or advising persons for consideration — or offering to do so — to all stages in connection with a proceeding or application under that Act, including before a proceeding has been commenced or an application has been made, and provides for penalties in case of contravention;
(b) exempts from the prohibition
(i) members of a provincial law society or notaries of the Chambre des notaires du Québec, and students-at-law acting under their supervision,
(ii) any other members of a provincial law society or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, including a paralegal,
(iii) members of a body designated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
(iv) entities, and persons acting on the entities’ behalf, acting in accordance with an agreement or arrangement with Her Majesty in right of Canada;
(c) extends the time for instituting certain proceedings by way of summary conviction from six months to 10 years;
(d) gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to make transitional regulations in relation to the designation or revocation by the Minister of a body;
(e) provides for oversight by that Minister of a designated body through regulations requiring the body to provide information to allow the Minister to determine whether it governs its members in the public interest; and
(f) facilitates information sharing with regulatory bodies regarding the professional and ethical conduct of their members.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Bill C-49, our tough legislation to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system, gives us the tools we need to stop illegal smuggling boats. Longer detention will keep our streets safer. Preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining sponsoring relatives for five years reduces the incentive to queue jump. Finally, we will have the tools under our criminal law to pursue and punish the captain and crew.

We did it with Bill C-11, refugee reform legislation. We did it with Bill C-35, dealing with crooked immigration consultants. Let us work together to get this bill through the House.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I move that Bill C-35 in clause 6 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 4 with the following:

connection with a proceeding--other than a proceeding before a superior court--or application

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8--Order in council)

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I move that Bill C-35 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 3 with the following:

ing that conduct, for the purposes of ensuring that persons referred to in those paragraphs offer and provide professional and ethical representation and advice to persons in connection with such proceedings and applications.

Basically it makes for the provision of information to governing bodies so that they have to disclose their information properly. I just wanted to clarify to make sure that would be the case.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 6--Persons authorized to represent, advise or consult)

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No, I'm not.

I move that Bill C-35 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 33 on page 3 with the following:

connection with a proceeding--other than a proceeding before a superior court--or application

(Amendment agreed to)

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So moved, that Bill C-35--

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Before I finish, I would really like to understand. The amendment before us suggests extending the limitation period to 10 years for a summary conviction. But Bill C-35 already amends the act to make that limitation period five years.

Is it true that it is six months at the moment? If Bill C-35 were not passed, would it be six months for a summary conviction?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes, I am.

I move that Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the following new clause:

Section 117 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) Evidence that 40 or more passengers of a vessel each possess a document in contravention of paragraph 122(1)(a) is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that any individual serving as a crew member of the vessel knowingly organized, induced, aided or abetted the coming into Canada of one or more persons in contravention of subsection (1).

That deals with the smugglers. It is reversing the onus of proof.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right, I'll proceed.

Bill C-35 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by providing the minister with the power to designate a body whose members may represent or advise a person and to require the body to provide information to the minister.

This amendment attempts to require the minister to stay a removal order under certain circumstances. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 766 that “[a]n amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

It's my opinion, as chairman, that the requirement to stay a removal order is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-35 and is therefore inadmissible.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We certainly understand Ms. Chow's intent. The minister has done so in the letter that he sent to her indicating that the regulation will be strengthened by amending the regulations, as Ms. MacNeil mentioned, once Bill C-35 comes into force.

I understand the intent of the direction in which Ms. Chow would like to go, but I think it's important for the committee to understand and accept the fact that there are things that belong within the legislative framework of the bill and there are things that belong within the regulatory framework. I think there is agreement across the board that this should be strengthened, but it should be strengthened through regulation and not through legislation.

[Brenna MacNeil, Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The authority presently exists under section 10 of the immigration and refugee protection regulations to return an application where a representative is not disclosed. It provides that if there is representation for a fee, an application shall include the name of the organization of which the person is a member and their membership number.

So this issue is currently dealt with under regulation. It gives the authority to return applications where the identified representative is not an authorized representative or if an application is suspected to have been submitted by a representative who is not an authorized representative or not disclosed.

There are provisions in the regulations. They'll certainly be amended should Bill C-35 come into effect. They can be strengthened at that time.

I would also like to point out that the amendment as proposed does not specify “for consideration”. That is an additional issue with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 33, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 23, 2010, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This is a carry-over from the last session. We have Ms. MacNeil and Ms. Ménard with us from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Ms. Chow, I think we left off with you on NDP-8.

(On clause 2)

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I understand, Chair. We understand. We're attempting to make sure that we don't fall into some of the same problems we've had with the current regulator in the next one, and we had wished to frame a little more rigour around governance, but we understand that's not what Bill C-35 is all about.

It sort of pulls into question the issue on the fact that we're doing the legislation that's governing the body at the same time as the bodies are applying to be the governor, the eventual regulator, and there's a little bit of a parallel track that causes some confusion. But we accept the decision of the chair on that and we'll move on.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

It is moved by me that Bill C-35 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 3 the following:

(7.1) For greater certainty, An Act respecting immigration to Québec, R.S.Q., c. I-.0.2 applies to, among other persons, every person who, in Quebec, represents or advises a person for consideration--or offers to do so--in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act and

(a) is authorized to do so under regulations made under paragraph (7)(b); or

(b) is a member of a body designated under subsection (5).

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

The concern of the Liberal Party around this issue of consultants in Quebec centres around the fact that for a consultant to operate in the province of Quebec, and be effective and a quality consultant, they should be able to recommend to clients all the options, including the options touching on the provincial stream of immigration. The concern is that there may be an infringement of people's rights to practise certain types of immigration consultancy that don't require any provincial input, such as the refugee stream, which wouldn't need to conform to the Quebec code.

Now, this is a small issue, but it is one that I think represents a rare enough case that in this situation, as with much of what we're doing on Bill C-35, we're going to have to have faith that the eventual regulator will be strong enough to ensure the quality of advice and representation that is given to all its clients. Therefore, the amendment that the government is putting forward seems reasonable to us, as long as the government also commits—as it has indicated it will—to instruct the future regulator to ensure that anyone applying to a Quebec immigration consultant who is not conforming to the rules of the Quebec system must advise any client that there are Quebec options that they cannot sell them on and that they therefore should seek advice from a different consultant who is qualified in Quebec.

This a middling compromise that satisfies none of the parties around the table, to be entirely honest—not entirely. It requires us to have faith that an eventual regulator will be able to ensure that the immigration consultants operating in Quebec and across the country are of top quality. Because of this, we are not going to be supportive of the BQ-1.1 amendment and will be supporting the government amendment.